Ninth Circuit Bars California From Making ICE and Other Federal Agents Show Names or Badge Numbers, Even Though the Law Covered State Police Too

California cannot require ICE agents and other federal officers to display their agency and name or badge number while making arrests in the state, a federal appeals court ruled on Oct. 14. A unanimous Ninth Circuit panel held that the state’s 2025 No Vigilantes Act directly regulates the federal government in violation of the Supremacy Clause, and it ordered a Los Angeles judge to block enforcement of the identification rule against federal agencies and officers.

The ruling matters beyond California for one reason: it is now published, binding precedent for every federal court in the nine Western states the Ninth Circuit covers, and it rejects the two arguments that states and cities have been relying on to defend similar laws. That includes the “it applies to everyone” design behind Denver’s ordinance, which the Justice Department sued to overturn last week.

The provision, Section 10 of S.B. 805 (California Penal Code 13654), makes it a misdemeanor for a non-uniformed officer, federal officers expressly included, to willfully and knowingly go without visible identification during arrests, detentions and crowd control, with exceptions for undercover work, tactical teams and emergencies. Senior U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder had refused to block it. The same panel, Judges Jacqueline Nguyen, Mark Bennett and Daniel Collins, froze the law in April pending appeal; Bennett’s Oct. 14 opinion turns that temporary order into precedent.

Why covering state police too did not save the law

The doctrine here is intergovernmental immunity, and it has two separate tests. A state law fails if it discriminates against the federal government, or if it regulates the federal government directly. California built its defense around the first, arguing that the rule binds state and local officers exactly as it binds federal ones and citing an October 2025 FBI warning about criminals impersonating ICE agents, AP reported in April.

The panel decided the case on the second test. Section 10, Bennett wrote, “explicitly overrides the federal government’s power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers.” Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1920 decision in Johnson v. Maryland, the court held that a state may not directly regulate federal operations even when it regulates its own officers the same way. It also rejected the idea that Washington must show a substantial burden: “the burden of the regulation on federal operations, whether substantial or otherwise, is irrelevant.”

Denver wrote its mask ordinance to cover every officer in the city, and its natural fallback is that any burden on federal work is modest. The Tenth Circuit, which will hear any Denver appeal, is not bound by this opinion, but it now faces a published appellate decision rejecting both arguments.

What a federal agent in California still has to do

The ruling does not leave federal officers with no identification duty at all. A federal regulation, 8 CFR 287.8(c)(2)(iii), requires an immigration officer making an arrest to identify himself or herself as an immigration officer authorized to make the arrest, and to state that the person is under arrest and why, “as soon as it is practical and safe to do so.” That is a spoken statement of role, not a visible name or badge number.

The injunction protects only the United States, federal agencies and federal officers, so the identification rule can still be applied to California’s own state and local police. The state’s separate mask ban, S.B. 627, was not before the panel; Snyder blocked it as to federal officers in February because it exempted some state officers, and no one appealed that ruling.

The federal government has argued throughout that the law endangers officers and that the Constitution bars California from regulating federal agents. California’s attorney general’s office said it was disappointed and was reviewing the opinion, Courthouse News reported.

Where the fight goes next

California can ask the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the case or petition the Supreme Court. A unanimous panel that included an Obama appointee, and an outcome that matches the rulings against mask laws in Virginia, Philadelphia and New York, make en banc review an uphill request. The larger effect may be on legislatures: rules telling federal officers how to identify themselves or what to wear will be treated as direct regulation however evenly they are written, while laws limiting state and local help to federal enforcement, which courts have generally upheld, stand on firmer ground.

District court order: Snyder must now enter the preliminary injunction on remand.
California’s next filing: whether the state seeks rehearing en banc or Supreme Court review.
Denver: the first ruling on the Justice Department’s suit will show how much weight a Tenth Circuit court gives this opinion.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds a LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Deigo and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts